User talk:Heptor

Your refusal to allow criticism of the Jan Egeland is rather odd.

Yesterday the UN HQ in Lebanon was stormed by an angry mob after the killing of over sixty people mostly children by Israli precision weapons. A lot of the balame is laid at the door at the UN not doing anything

Jan Edgeland is the most senior UN representative in Lebanon and he is seen as biased towards Israel

Wikipedia editors from divergent points of view edit the Jan Egeland with an incresed frequency as it is topical news. By frequent edits from both sides a common consensus is arrived at which becomes the prevailing concensus.

April 2018

Hello, I'm Peaceray. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to RF resonant cavity thruster seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please discuss you proposed changes on the talk page. Peaceray (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Peaceray. WP:NPV applies to legitimate scientific disagreement. It requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. See WP:PSCI for details. Heptor _talk 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that there has been quite a bit of controversy about this & that skeptics demand extraordinary verification for extraordinary phenomena. However, there has been considerable discussion about this on the talk page, & before I reverted your edits, I did not see your participation. The fact that both the U.S. & Chinese governments are going to great lengths to test this, & that multiple tests (albeit with their own sets of problems) have reported positive results mean that we cannot dismiss the phenomena out of hand, even if we are ignorant of the how & why. As a result, I am sure that we will find flaws in the experiments or need to adjust our understanding of physics. But to simply dismiss this as fiction as you were attempting is WP:POV IMHO, particularly without participating in the WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. I know that the idea of consensus may not sit well with those who feel that this obviously violates the law of physics, but consensus is how we operate here on Wikipedia. I also know enough about science to realize that while most claims & hypotheses are disproved, there are somethings that experts doubt that turns out to be real; witness Einstein's dismissal of quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance". Peaceray (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The same arguments have been used in many other pseudoscience-related topics, see for example talk:Homeopathy. It is not unusual that there are some unexplained results in the published works. They can be due to chance, errors in experiment, or outright falsification. That is the reason why extraordianry claims do in fact require extraordinary verification. So we have that the evidence of effectiveness are flimsy, and the claimed principle of operation counterdicts the known laws of nature. So it's pseudoscience, and it should be labeled as pseudoscience per WP policy. Heptor _talk 23:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at RF resonant cavity thruster. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please get consensus on the talk page before attempting these edits again. Peaceray (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Peaceray, your aggressive spamming of my talk page is not appreciated. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy on pseudoscientific topics, and participate in the discussion on the talk page of the article. Heptor _talk 13:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

For the benifit of uninvolved editors who are reading the above, I made two separate and distinct edits to the article in question: [1][2]. After that I started a discussion on the talk page. It is unfortunate that Peaceray found my edits unconstructive, but posting abusive templates that insinuate authority on my talk page is uncalled for, constitute POV railroading, and, more worryingly, create an superficial impression that I engaged in bad-faith editing, which I havn't. Heptor _talk 22:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Heptor, I do a lot of page patrolling & use Twinkle to notify users of what I perceive to be policy violations. I perceive that you calling the EM Drive a "fiction" to be in total disregard of the cited sources & long standing editing consensus. I believed that to be a POV violation on your part, & in reading your talk archives, I have grown to suspect that you may disregard & sometimes even remove reliable sources with which you disagree. There has been a lot of discussion about this article & a considerable WP:EDITCONSENSUS before you started to call it pseudoscience because you are of the opinion that the experimental results unequivocally violate Newton's third law of motion. In short, you do not believe NASA's experimental results, while others are slower to judgement, allowing something may be going on that we cannot yet explain.

I do not accept that NASA's Eagleworks Laboratories are fakirs any more than I would accept moon landing conspiracy theories.

I am already familiar with WP:PSCI largely through some editing I have done on WikiProject Medicine articles, which are governed by the stricter WP:MEDRS. If & when we see an explanation that discounts the EM Drive results, then it will be incumbent on us to state that. But right now we have results and no explanation either way, so it is our obligation to report the results in WP:NPOV. Period.

When I place warning templates, I understand they are usually not appreciated. That is not their purpose. I place them to draw attention to my perception that there was violations of policy or guidelines. I have not been dissuaded in my assessment, & thus find your accusations of POV railroading ironic. I am only responding because you challenged my actions. I do not intend to respond here further. I invite any interested editor, uninvolved or otherwise, to examine our respective edit histories before coming to any judgements in this matter.

Peaceray (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Peaceray. If you edited on pseudoscientific topics before, you should know that most pseodoscientific topics have at least some strange results published in seamingly legitimate fora. For Homeopathy this includes the infamous study by Jacques Benveniste, which claimed there was water memory. It got published in Nature, but never legitimately reproduced. Your comparison of this NASA study to the Moon Landing is painfully out of proportion. Several other publications point out possible sources of experimental error, including Snopes and Phys.org. These sources also point out that the design has no physically plausible mechanism of action (i.e. would violate the laws of physics if it worked). This is also largely parallell to the state of the art in Homeopathy and related fields. Also similar to Homeopathy, proponents of the theory suggest all kinds of explanations based on principles of nature that the mainstream physics community somehow missed out.

I understand that you hold the opinion you hold in good faith. Use of policy violation templates in a content dispute is generally not a good faith practice however. Heptor (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Luhansk Peoples Republic

This is your only warning; if you move a page maliciously again, as you did at Lugansk People's Republic, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC) [EDIT] Per discussion on my own talk. Move was in good faith, not malicious. Collaborative discussions on how to improve the article are underway. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Per above, page has been moved back. Please start up another move request to gain a proper consensus before moving pages that have been RfC'd before — IVORK _Discuss 02:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of my notification template

Heptor, I would appreciate it if you would self-revert/remove the section break and title you have added here. Per WP:TALKO, you are misrepresenting the context in which I issued the template (i.e., as the third warning in a series for this month). By reinventing it as being separate from the context, you appear to be intentionally trying to support the contention of 'threatening messages' left by me on your talk page and assuming bad faith on my behalf.

Whether you recall or not, we have had discussions in the past - that is, during the inception of the war and articles surrounding it where you were making WP:BOLD changes without joining in discussions on the corresponding talk pages. In your defence, you were a newbie and you willingly and actively complied with the request to follow best practice.

The fact that these types of articles fall off editors' radars, and that Axxxion's changes were not picked up on and reverted immediately makes his content changes neither valid nor consensus. Janitorial work can take time to get to. As regards your other content removed when I rolled back to reasonable consensus version, please explain what this edit summary actually means, and supply reliable sources for the population field you added to the infobox. WP:CALC is permissible (even desirable) in some articles, but A) the LPR is not a recognised entity; B) even if such an estimate were appropriate, you must be able to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I'm aware of no valid census, nor any evidence that the fact that people still living there have chosen to do so because they willingly live under the auspices of LPR governance: generally, given the exodus of refugees from the war, the nothing to indicate how many people actually still live within the borders of the 'state'. In fact, there is no evidence that it is anything other than an unrecognised military state. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I welcome

your response to my post on the Lugansk People Republic page, so far there is none. Nor is there any valid source to support "Luhansk People Republic".Axxxion (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience as well as your impatience, Axxxion. Heptor (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

English language variants attached to an article, plus date format

Hi, Heptor. Just as a heads up, always open articles in the full edit view to check whether it is templated for a particular English language variant (as well as date format). In the case of Luhansk People's Republic, it is templated for EngvarB, as well as day/month/year formatting for the body and citations. See MOS:ENGVAR, MOS:RETAIN, MOS:TIES, etc. for details. The subject matter doesn't have any ties to North American English or British English, so it uses a more generic form of spelling (which includes "colour", "labour", "-ise" endings in favour of "ize" endings.

If it isn't templated for any particular form of English, it's best to go back to its earliest history and check to see whether it was written in an obvious variant in the first place. If so, MOS:RETAIN should be adhered to. Cheers, and keep up the good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! MOS:ENGVAR was a good read. By the way, are "-our", "-ise" endings more generic? I thought they were British? Heptor (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello, Heptor. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)